Just what action constitutes suspicious behavior?
That question was asked quite reasonably by Lionel van Deerlin in an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday. He suggests that if I were to pull out a pistol and fire five shots into the windshield of a car containing an unarmed woman and an eight-year-old kid that the police would probably consider that suspicious enough to think that I was under the influence of some sort of intoxicant, and that they would probably subject me to some sort of blood test to find out if such were the case.
Apparently, in San Diego, not.
They did not give a blood test to the shooter, who was an off duty police officer. They did give a blood test to the woman he fired at, but they did not say what her suspicious activity consisted of. Other than getting shot at. And, in fact, shot; he hit her with two bullets. Perhaps, in San Diego, getting shot is "suspicious activity" and warrants a drug test, while shooting an unarmed female who is sitting in her car does not.
You can read Van Deerlin's column here, but my take on this is that the longer the Oceanside and San Diego Police Departments drag this out without revealing the truth, the worse the stench of corruption reeks in my nostrils.